Posted on 03/16/2006 7:42:26 AM PST by Gamecock
If I get arrested and imprisoned, can I claim that I am being thrown in jail by the Lutheran church, because it IS the state religion of Norway, or is it simply the state punishing me, or simpler still, the actions of a very few who say they are acting on behalf of their church, though they obviously are not?
In actuality I am committing a crime, though it is overshadowed by a perceived religious context, I should be punished for it. Spinmasters can bend this to their ends very easily. As such, this is the case with a good sized majority of those people, and it is very one-sided, and does not take in other historical factors that are external. That said, Yes, there were some atrocities committed by the Church over the last 2,000 years.
LOL! More misunderstanding of history in action. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire under Emperor Theodosius I, who ruled from 379 until his death in 395.
Did you get the Inquisition memo? Maybe it disappeared down the same black hole as last month's phone bill ...
I just wanted to let you two know that the Vatican is running a special on indulgences today; only $15.95 a pound with your semi-Pelagian Preference Card. Stock up!
LOL ... it's coming in on my Opus Dei decoder ring right now ... I'll get back to you! ;-)
You wrote:
"What year did the Roman Catholic Church marry the state under Constantine?"
There was no marriage of any such kind. The Roman state stayed the Roman state. The Catholic Church stayed the Catholic Church. The two cooperated, but NEVER became one. If the two became one then why did Constantine and his sons flirt with Arianism when the Church opposed it? Why was Constantine baptized by an Arian heretic? Why were one or more of his sons Arian, openly Arian at that? If the Roman state and Catholic Church were one then why didn't the Church ever accept Arianism when Constantine and his family championed it several years AFTER the Council of Nicea?
"I've always believed that is the point where Roman Catholicism really went off track becoming more political than religious."
And that never happened. The Church was never more political than religious. The Church offers Mass every day. How often does it hold political conventions? The Church has seven sacraments, but no public political parties. The Church has the Bible, but didn't change a word of it to please an emperor, or king, or noble of any rank. Please don't go trolling over the internet looking for Davinci Code like conspiracies that say otherwise. Why waste your time?
I *told* Der Prinz he should be in Opus Dei instead of the Cub Scouts. We miss out on *everything*.
Excellent post. Latin America has endured a LOT of persecution from Roman Catholics. Catholicism and Islam are known for such behavior. That's why they hate EACH OTHER. How sad.
Nonsense. Jack Chick says that the Pope started Islam, and that Islam is just another arm of the WofB. I believe everything Jack says, and so should you.
Thanks for the post.
I'm always amused by the "holier than though" sarcasm of most of the RC posters.
In spite of the sarcasm, Islam founded by Mohammed in 610 A.D. and he at first preached peace toward Christians and Jews to try and convert them to Islam (Anti-Christ?). When that didn't work, he began all-out war which continues to this day.
"The Church was never more political than religious. The Church offers Mass every day. How often does it hold political conventions?"
_________________________________
What do you call it when your Cardinals meet and ELECT a Pope?
Whoa! Now your changing your words. First you claimed there was a "marriage" of the Church and state. Now you say the Church "was driven by politics once it became part of the state". Which is it? Also, the Church was never a part of the state. When the state interferred in Church affairs the Church didn't appreciate it.
If the state ONCE controlled the state then that control would have never ended, but clearly the state doesn't control the Catholic Church today now does it? Only Sweden has relinquished control over its state church in modern times and that took more than 450 years to come about.
The Church is sensitive to the various developments in political movements, parties, governments, etc. That in no way means the Church was EVER a part of the state or that the state dictated doctrine.
Anti-Catholics strike me as funny with whole idea. On one occasion they'll lash out and say the Church was a creature of the state (always without a shred of evidence of course) and on another the same loon will claim the Church imperiously dominated the state and crushed freedom that way. Which is it?
So much of this would be cleared up if Protestants just studied history. Is that too much to ask?
The state is always going to try to co-opt religious institutions if it can. Nobody is immune. Not having a centralized structure can make it harder, but that's all it will do.
Much of Church history between the resurrection and today is the story of the State (various states) trying to force the Church (every church) to do its bidding, or simply to eradicate it entirely. In some places (England, Byzantium, and Tsarist Russia are examples) the church ended up as virtually an arm of the state.
The fact that Catholicism is supra-national has made it better able to resist those pressures than other hierarchical Christian groups, but has also made it a more tempting target for the state to attack.
And we're always amused by the "Catholics have two heads and ten horns and are servants of the devil who would kill us all if they could just like they did in the 3rd century" paranoia of many of the Protestant posters.
If that's political, then so is a meeting of the elders of a Baptist church to SELECT a pastor.
Incredible.
You wrote: "What do you call it when your Cardinals meet and ELECT a Pope?"
I call it what it is -- a conclave. It is not a secular election. No one invoilved holds a secular office. No one involved represents a secular government. All members take a solemn oath to vote their conscience as to who will best lead the CHURCH.
And we all know darn well that you were talking about SECULAR politics earlier. Are you getting so desperate that you have to try and make a conclave of cardinals into a secular political institution?
Incredible.
You wrote: "What do you call it when your Cardinals meet and ELECT a Pope?"
I call it what it is -- a conclave. It is not a secular election. No one involved holds a secular office. No one involved represents a secular government. All members take a solemn oath to vote their conscience as to who will best lead the CHURCH. It is a Church affair handled by the Church through Church offices, institutions, and even held on Church property.
And we all know darn well that you were talking about SECULAR politics earlier. Are you getting so desperate that you have to try and make a conclave of cardinals into a secular political institution?
What do you call it when a Roman Emporer calls a counsel and a pope and bishops show up?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.